CIC: The internal correspondence of concerned third person and also medical leave records of employees are exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act - CIC: Provide the date-wise documents of availability or receipt of the PhD thesis

Information sought and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 04.04.2019 seeking information on following seven points;

“1. Enrolment number 335258 the student name of Gyanendra Singh has deposited his PhD thesis in the concerned office of BHU on 30-12-2017 deposition certificate is attached. From the date of 30-12-2017 till today, the journey of said PhD thesis that has passed through the different/ various department and office of the University and Institute. Kindly provide the date-wise documents of availability or receipt the thesis of undersigned.

2. Enrolment No. 335258 the student name is Gyanendra Singh the PhD Thesis has been submitted as per the bylaws of BHU 2009 to the concerned office of BHU on 30-12-2017, provide the year of award of PhD. If any rules from the IIT BHU has been recently revised in this concerned, then provide the guidelines/ circulars of the above.

3. Mr A K. Srivastava, Department of Pharmaceutical Eng. & Tech, IIT-BHU has given any letter, to the Dean Academic Office or the Examination Controlling Office or any related office to completion of the PhD thesis evaluation process of enrolment number 335258 or the PhD courses in between of January 01, 2018 to December 29, 2018. Kindly provide a copy of the said letter.

4. Since January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2018, how many employees of the Department of Pharmaceutical Engineering and Technology have been absent in the department due to lack of health or on medical leave. Kindly provide information about the absence (medical leave) of information on the date wise.

5. The undersigned entered in the PhD course in September 2011 in the Department of Pharmaceutics, IT BHU (the converted name is Department of Pharmaceutical Engineering & Technology, IIT BHU) with the enrolment number 335258. Kindly provide the information of which bylaws of the institute has followed for the PhD for him. Is there any direction given by any authority of the administration kindly provide the guidelines of the same.

6. The IIT BHU Examination Controlling Office and Dean Academic Office or any other related office have given a request letter to the BHU administration to fetch the thesis of applicant enrolment number 335258 from the concerned thesis office of the BHU administration. Kindly provide a copy of the said letter is made available.

7. Any request letter has been given to any concerned officer of the Institute or by the concerned officer of the Department of Pharmaceutical Engineering & Technology or the Head of Department of Pharmaceutical Engineering & Technology for the completion of the PhD thesis evaluation process of enrolment number 335258. Kindly provide a copy of the said letter.”

The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 16.04.2019. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.05.2019. FAA’s order, if any, is not available on record.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through video conference.

Respondent: Rohit Kumar, Assistant Registrar & CPIO, IIT (BHU) present through video conference.

Appellant stated that no information has been received from the CPIO against points no. 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 of RTI application till date.

CPIO relied on his written submissions dated 27.03.2021 and submitted that the Appellant is a habitual RTI applicant who filed numerous RTI applications and reply to the same has been provided to him on every occasion. He further submitted that the information sought by the Appellant is confidential in nature which cannot be disclosed as per the mandate of RTI Act.

Decision

The Commission based upon a perusal of facts on record observes that although a detailed submission has been filed by the CPIO through letter 27.03.2021 yet the queries of the Appellant on points no. 1, 6 and 7 of RTI application still remain unanswered. Therefore, in the interest of justice the CPIO is directed to provide a point wise reply along with available information in response to points no. 1, 6 and 7 of the RTI application as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The said reply should be provided by the CPIO to the Appellant free of cost within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.

The Commission further observes that the information sought by the Appellant on points no. 3 & 4 of RTI application pertains to the internal correspondence of concerned third person and also medical leave records of employees which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act. The said observation is in line with a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of “personal information” envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. In view of aforesaid, no further relief from the Commission can be granted on the said points of RTI application.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Saroj Punhani

Information Commissioner

Citation: Gyanendra Singh v. Office of Academic Affairs, Indian Institute Of Technology, RTI Cell, (Banaras Hindu University) in File No: CIC/IITVR/A/2019/643875, Date of Decision: 01/04/2021